Tim McClean Greyhound Bus Decapitation

[chaosB4storm]

http://www.welt.de/english-news/arti2274086/Grisly_murder_aboard_Greyhound_bus_ in_Canada.html

Any thoughts?

Tim Mclean*

[Nevuk]

I honestly don't see how its a political issue.

[chaosB4storm]

Alright.

He's a recent immigrant. We possibly need tighter control.
He's being charged with second degree murder. Any ideas on proper punishment for him?
The biggest issue, however, is security. How should it change, if it should at all? Should we have airport-like security on all bus stations?

The liberal party has brought up the idea of registering knives. The conservative government is opposed to it. Thoughts?

[Nevuk]

I'm waiting to see just how many people the person had attacked before commenting about security aspects. I'm guessing this wasn't an isolated event, as he was too calm for it to have been the first time he did something of the sort.

However - it doesn't matter how much you ramp up security. If someone wants to kill someone else badly enough to sacrifice their life, they'll do it with or without weapons and in public. Anyone you see can kill you just by punching you in the right spot (basically the throat, as it takes so little force to crush it to the point where your only option is to get your throat slit to breath. But there are others). A knife isn't a gun, it has extremely viable utility uses in a ton of professions. Cooking, etc. So essentially the comforting thought : anyone you see can kill you if you piss them off enough. So don't do it.

[chaosB4storm]

I'm waiting to see just how many people the person had attacked before commenting about security aspects. I'm guessing this wasn't an isolated event, as he was too calm for it to have been the first time he did something of the sort.

However - it doesn't matter how much you ramp up security. If someone wants to kill someone else badly enough to sacrifice their life, they'll do it with or without weapons and in public. Anyone you see can kill you just by punching you in the right spot (basically the throat, as it takes so little force to crush it to the point where your only option is to get your throat slit to breath. But there are others). A knife isn't a gun, it has extremely viable utility uses in a ton of professions. Cooking, etc. So essentially the comforting thought : anyone you see can kill you if you piss them off enough. So don't do it.

It is isolated. He had an extensive background check in Canada for his occupation, and they found nothing. However, he could be a mass murderer in China, where he came from.

I completely agree that it doesn't matter how much you ramp up security. Since it is impossible to provide security to the individual, shouldn't the individual be allowed to provide her own security?

Guns are also manufactured for various reasons, none of them being to murder people.

[Burning Star IV]

The liberal party has brought up the idea of registering knives. The conservative government is opposed to it. Thoughts?
And I thought the the gun registry was a stupid idea.

[redalibi]

I think there should be some kind of security check. I really don't know if it's too important he was an immigrant. I really don't think people made a big deal with Cho from VA tech being an immigrant. Anybody is capable of doing the same fucked up shit. I feel really bad for that kid though..didn't even see it coming.

[chaosB4storm]

And I thought the the gun registry was a stupid idea.

You were right.

[Nevuk]

It is isolated. He had an extensive background check in Canada for his occupation, and they found nothing. However, he could be a mass murderer in China, where he came from.

I completely agree that it doesn't matter how much you ramp up security. Since it is impossible to provide security to the individual, shouldn't the individual be allowed to provide her own security?

Guns are also manufactured for various reasons, none of them being to murder people.
There's a difference between security for yourself and capability to murder at 500 yards.

[Nevuk]

Personal security against other people has never seemed like a good anti-gun control argument, but personal security against the government is the real argument for it.

[chaosB4storm]

I think there should be some kind of security check. I really don't know if it's too important he was an immigrant. I really don't think people made a big deal with Cho from VA tech being an immigrant. Anybody is capable of doing the same fucked up shit. I feel really bad for that kid though..didn't even see it coming.

We allowed this person to come into our country from China. It makes sense that this wouldn't be his first crime. That would mean our standards for immigrants are lacking. We have no control over the next person born here. He has the right to live in Canada. This person did not, and we hoped he could strengthen our country. The immigration system was wrong.

[chaosB4storm]

Personal security against other people has never seemed like a good anti-gun control argument, but personal security against the government is the real argument for it.

Security is security. If the individual is being attacked by anyone, she would able to provide her own security against people or government. The government is the people.

[Nevuk]

Security is security. If the individual is being attacked by anyone, she would able to provide her own security against people or government. The government is the people.
The government is the people... oh, ideals are always so cute until we go poisoning them.

[redalibi]

We allowed this person to come into our country from China. It makes sense that this wouldn't be his first crime. That would mean our standards for immigrants are lacking. We have no control over the next person born here. He has the right to live in Canada. This person did not, and we hoped he could strengthen our country. The immigration system was wrong.

There are people who are the waiting list for 20 years to finally become immigrants. They only see what's on paper. It's a very unfortunate situation, but you have to look at it from a statistical viewpoint(like everything else in this world); if something shows there are a lot immigrants fucking up, then yes we gotta do something.

[chaosB4storm]

There are people who are the waiting list for 20 years to finally become immigrants. They only see what's on paper. It's a very unfortunate situation, but you have to look at it from a statistical viewpoint(like everything else in this world); if something shows there are a lot immigrants fucking up, then yes we gotta do something.

So you admit the immigration system is flawed (in that these incidents occur), but you don't believe it is possible to be prevented? Therefore, you have given up on the immigration system. I believe it can be fixed. The system can be tightened and improved.

So all the Tim Mcleans in the country can be sacrificed at the altar of the immigration system? You believe the benefits of the current system outweigh the loss of the victims?

[redalibi]

I just don't agree everything can be perfect with the government. Have you notice all the stuff happening around us lately? These are individual incidents where immigrants fucked up their chance and did something really bad..i don't know where you going here?? You're telling me out of a thousands and thousands of immigrants...there's not gonna be at least one wacko?

[bluecrunchy]

What I want to know is how the guy was able to stab the man 50 times, and nobody tried to stop him.

[tambam]

I don't think mentally unstable people should be allowed into a country, but at the same time, this Li character had no previous criminal record.

I think he needs to be locked up for the rest of his life. He had the knife with him and I believe he was planning on killing someone before he got on that bus. I think he deserves to be locked up in a dark, damp room for the rest of his life and never see the light of day again.

[Burning Star IV]

I know it's been said before, but what's the deal with this second degree murder charge? Clearly he had planned on killing someone.

[saysmydoctor]

Canada has an immigration problem?

[chaosB4storm]

I just don't agree everything can be perfect with the government. Have you notice all the stuff happening around us lately? These are individual incidents where immigrants fucked up their chance and did something really bad..i don't know where you going here?? You're telling me out of a thousands and thousands of immigrants...there's not gonna be at least one wacko?

Where did you get those numbers? I want the percentage of immigrants that strengthen our country to be higher than what it is.

If you like the current immigration, you at least must admit that Mclean died for the good of the country. I want there to be less of these occurences.

Even if we managed to weed out the criminals from our immigration system, it does not mean that the remaining people will strengthen our country. Innocent immigrants does not neccessarily equal stronger country.

[chaosB4storm]

There's a difference between security for yourself and capability to murder at 500 yards.

Weapons used for personal security are incapable of such range.

[tambam]

Are people forgetting that people born in the country are just as likely to be mentally unstable? Lots of serial killers in Canada and the US weren't immigrants. It's not an immigrant problem, it's a mental problem.

[chaosB4storm]

What I want to know is how the guy was able to stab the man 50 times, and nobody tried to stop him.

It is illegal to carry protection in Canada. That is probably why no one stoped him.

[chaosB4storm]

Are people forgetting that people born in the country are just as likely to be mentally unstable? Lots of serial killers in Canada and the US weren't immigrants. It's not an immigrant problem, it's a mental problem.

People born in the country have the right to live in Canada. You can't choose who's born. You can choose the immigrants you allow into the country.

[chaosB4storm]

I know it's been said before, but what's the deal with this second degree murder charge? Clearly he had planned on killing someone.

This forum needs more right-winged Canadians like you.

[chaosB4storm]

I don't think mentally unstable people should be allowed into a country, but at the same time, this Li character had no previous criminal record.

I think he needs to be locked up for the rest of his life. He had the knife with him and I believe he was planning on killing someone before he got on that bus. I think he deserves to be locked up in a dark, damp room for the rest of his life and never see the light of day again.

At the very least.

[Burning Star IV]

This forum needs more right-winged Canadians like you.
I wouldn't say I'm conservative at all. I'm very socialist, but this still boggles my mind.

[redalibi]

Where did you get those numbers? I want the percentage of immigrants that strengthen our country to be higher than what it is.

If you like the current immigration, you at least must admit that Mclean died for the good of the country. I want there to be less of these occurences.

Even if we managed to weed out the criminals from our immigration system, it does not mean that the remaining people will strengthen our country. Innocent immigrants does not neccessarily equal stronger country.

It's a number I pulled out of my ass for crying out loud. Don't you realize I'm trying to say there are people who look good on paper as far as having a good record. We don't really know if there's something wrong with him/her. How do we know if he didn't snap when he was living here? You don't think we live in a world were people don't have fucked up secrets and coexist with society. It's an individual problem where we can hope people can report signs of these type of individuals to get to them at time.

[tambam]

People born in the country have the right to live in Canada. You can't choose who's born. You can choose the immigrants you allow into the country.

How can you possibly know who's dangerous and who isn't when they haven't had a criminal record in the past? Even the people that knew this guy said he was a hard-working individual who appeared to be pretty stable.

What I'm saying is, the murders committed by people born in the country aren't anymore acceptable or justified than murders committed by immigrants. If this guy was capable of doing something like this in Canada, he would have probably done the same thing if he had stayed in China. The problem is much deeper than immigration.

[chaosB4storm]

I wouldn't say I'm conservative at all. I'm very socialist, but this still boggles my mind.

You are against gun registry, and you are for stiffening punishments. These are great conservative views.

[redalibi]

How can you possibly know who's dangerous and who isn't when they haven't had a criminal record in the past? Even the people that knew this guy said he was a hard-working individual who appeared to be pretty stable.

What I'm saying is, the murders committed by people born in the country aren't anymore acceptable or justified than murders committed by immigrants. If this guy was capable of doing something like this in Canada, he would have probably done the same thing if he had stayed in China. The problem is much deeper than immigration.

Thank you! This kid obviously doesn't get it

[Burning Star IV]

You are against gun registry, and you are for stiffening punishments. These are great conservative views.
I'm against the gun registry because it's an absolute waste of time and resources. Also, the crime does not by any stretch of the imagination fit the punishment.

[chaosB4storm]

It's a number I pulled out of my ass for crying out loud. Don't you realize I'm trying to say there are people who look good on paper as far as having a good record. We don't really know if there's something wrong with him/her. How do we know if he didn't snap when he was living here? You don't think we live in a world were people don't have fucked up secrets and coexist with society. It's an individual problem where we can hope people can report signs of these type of individuals to get to them at time.

I realise we don't know if there's something wrong with them. I realise there are people that look good on paper, but actually aren't. I realise people have secrets.

These are all reasons to have better checks, and be more selective. remember, they have to prove they will strengthen our country; it is not on us to prove they aren't criminals. You are misplacing the burden of proof.

[chaosB4storm]

I'm against the gun registry because it's an absolute waste of time and resources. Also, the crime does not by any stretch of the imagination fit the punishment.

You nailed it, Tory! haha

[Burning Star IV]

You nailed it, Tory! haha
You're barely old enough to vote, let alone actually participate in any democratic process.

[redalibi]

As far as I know..we are pretty selective. People wanting to live here must past all kinds of checks. I am pretty sure all that medical, criminal, and economic background are in the interest of immigration when it comes to strengthen this country. What do you have in mind?

Edit: Oh, We don't pass Visas out like candy

[chaosB4storm]

How can you possibly know who's dangerous and who isn't when they haven't had a criminal record in the past? Even the people that knew this guy said he was a hard-working individual who appeared to be pretty stable.

What I'm saying is, the murders committed by people born in the country aren't anymore acceptable or justified than murders committed by immigrants. If this guy was capable of doing something like this in Canada, he would have probably done the same thing if he had stayed in China. The problem is much deeper than immigration.

Who cares that he worked hard? And he had only been in Canada for a few years; we don't know what he did in China. Many terrible people work hard.

Admittedly, this is only one case, but it's not the only example of an immigrant not strengthening our country.

I want to lock away murderers born in our country as much as this immigrant. The difference is that the former group of people is not a mistake committed by the immigration system.

And as hard as it is for you to believe, I do not really care how many murderers exist in China. I would have much rather he committed murder in any place other than Canada, being the patriot that I am. The idea is to keep bad people out of my country.

[chaosB4storm]

You're barely old enough to vote, let alone actually participate in any democratic process.

I've been a member of the conservative party since I was 14. I also voted Stephen Harper in as the leader of the conservative party.

I'm not sure how my age is relevant to your conservative views.

[chaosB4storm]

As far as I know..we are pretty selective. People wanting to live here must past all kinds of checks. I am pretty sure all that medical, criminal, and economic background are in the interest of immigration when it comes to strengthen this country. What do you have in mind?

Edit: Oh, We don't pass Visas out like candy

I am not sure how your immigration system works, but I am from Canada.

And as far as our medical checks go, for an example, people with AIDS are not disqualified from our country.

I assume your country has a much better immigration system than mine.

[Burning Star IV]

I've been a member of the conservative party since I was 14. I also voted Stephen Harper in as the leader of the conservative party.

I'm not sure how my age is relevant to your conservative views.
And you're an absolute knob for doing so.

You cannot base someone's entire political affinity solely on two isolated issues.

Also, if you're 14 and worried about politics, you must have had one deprived childhood.

[redalibi]

A kid who's a conservative must of been brain fucked pretty good

[paper halo]

And as hard as it is for you to believe, I do not really care how many murderers exist in China. I would have much rather he committed murder in any place other than Canada, being the patriot that I am. The idea is to keep bad people out of my country.

I love that logic. "I only care about myself and others in MY country, everyone else can die, therefore I am a patriot, and not a selfish twunt."

[chaosB4storm]

And you're an absolute knob for doing so.

You cannot base someone's entire political affinity solely on two isolated issues.

Also, if you're 14 and worried about politics, you must have had one deprived childhood.

It's funny how you feel insulted enough by my compliments to start insulting my childhood.

And no, I cannot base your political stance with two issues, but I can hope (You're two for two so far).

Tell me, who was the better choice to vote for (you probably don't know who the choices were so you can't really say I voted the wrong one in)?

[chaosB4storm]

I love that logic. "I only care about myself and others in MY country, everyone else can die, therefore I am a patriot, and not a selfish twunt."

Exactly. It is great logic. We shouldn't throw the word "selfish" around like it's something bad.

[tambam]

Who cares that he worked hard? And he had only been in Canada for a few years; we don't know what he did in China. Many terrible people work hard.

Admittedly, this is only one case, but it's not the only example of an immigrant not strengthening our country.

I want to lock away murderers born in our country as much as this immigrant. The difference is that the former group of people is not a mistake committed by the immigration system.

And as hard as it is for you to believe, I do not really care how many murderers exist in China. I would have much rather he committed murder in any place other than Canada, being the patriot that I am. The idea is to keep bad people out of my country.

You're missing my point; that he had no previous criminal history in the past. Both of his bosses from his previous job said they did thorough back up checks on him and found nothing wrong. It's not like we can get into the heads of immigrants and know what they're thinking. It's impossible to know unless he had a history with this.

I also don't understand how a murder in China is less important than a murder in Canada just because you're Canadian. Either way, it's a human's life that was unfairly taken away from them.

This murder is no more horrific or wrong just because it wasn't committed by a born Canadian.

[tambam]

Exactly. It is great logic. We shouldn't throw the word "selfish" around like it's something bad.

No, it's horrible logic and the fact that you can't see how horrible and insensitive that sounds is just beyond me.

[chaosB4storm]

No, it's horrible logic and the fact that you can't see how horrible and insensitive that sounds is just beyond me.

It is not horrible logic. It is insensitive however. I can definitely see that.

[tambam]

It is not horrible logic. It is insensitive however. I can definitely see that.

So you realize it's insensitive and you still can't see anything wrong with it? How the hell is someone's life any less valuable to you because they're from somewhere else than you? Please try to make sense of that.

[chaosB4storm]

You're missing my point; that he had no previous criminal history in the past. Both of his bosses from his previous job said they did thorough back up checks on him and found nothing wrong. It's not like we can get into the heads of immigrants and know what they're thinking. It's impossible to know unless he had a history with this.

I also don't understand how a murder in China is less important than a murder in Canada just because you're Canadian. Either way, it's a human's life that was unfairly taken away from them.

This murder is no more horrific or wrong just because it wasn't committed by a born Canadian.

So can China send us all of their murderers right away then? Will you happily accept them?

Come back with your point of view when we have a one world government.

[tambam]

So can China send us all of their murderers right away then? Will you happily accept them?

Come back with your point of view when we have a one world government.

Where the hell did I say that? What you highlighted had nothing to do with that. All I said is that a murder in China isn't less important or horrible than it is here. I already stated in this thread that I didn't agree with lettting mentally unstable people in this country if there was a way of knowing they were mentally unstable.

[chaosB4storm]

So you realize it's insensitive and you still can't see anything wrong with it? How the hell is someone's life any less valuable to you because they're from somewhere else than you? Please try to make sense of that.

I want to strengthen my country. I do not want to do anything that weakens it. It's that simple.

My brother's life is more valuable to me than yours. Is that impossible for you to comprehend also?

[chaosB4storm]

Where the hell did I say that? What you highlighted had nothing to do with that. All I said is that a murder in China isn't less important or horrible than it is here. I already stated in this thread that I didn't agree with lettting mentally unstable people in this country if there was a way of knowing they were mentally unstable.

Well, the chinese government would rather the murders take place outside of their country. And you value all lives equally. So you should let them send you their murderers.

[tambam]

I want to strengthen my country. I do not want to do anything that weakens it. It's that simple.

My brother's life is more valuable to me than yours. Is that impossible for you to comprehend also?

That's not what you said. You said you didn't care about murders in China. You can still strengthen your country without being selfish.

That's different. You already know your brother. You implied that the life of one stranger is more important to you than the life of another just because one of them lives here and the other doesn't.

[tambam]

Well, the chinese government would rather the murders take place outside of their country. And you value all lives equally. So you should let them send you their murderers.

What the hell are you talking about? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. All I said was that I feel equally bad for a person murdered here than there. I have no idea how you got that out of what I said.

[chaosB4storm]

That's not what you said. You said you didn't care about murders in China. You can still strengthen your country without being selfish.

That's different. You already know your brother. You implied that the life of one stranger is more important to you than the life of another just because one of them lives here and the other doesn't.

One cannot maximize strengthening his country without being "selfish".

[tambam]

One cannot maximize strengthening his country without being "selfish".

I highly disagree and I think that's a very messed up attitude to have.

[paper halo]

One cannot maximize strengthening his country without being "selfish".

You use this alot. What, exactly, do you mean by 'strengthening your country'.

Because it seems that you just use it as a bullshit excuse to justify your opinions.

[chaosB4storm]

What the hell are you talking about? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. All I said was that I feel equally bad for a person murdered here than there. I have no idea how you got that out of what I said.

You said "the murderer would have killed people in China if he didn't come into Canada", as if that was some sort of point. It is not one.

[Burning Star IV]

It's funny how you feel insulted enough by my compliments to start insulting my childhood.

And no, I cannot base your political stance with two issues, but I can hope (You're two for two so far).

Tell me, who was the better choice to vote for (you probably don't know who the choices were so you can't really say I voted the wrong one in)?
Well considering even I wasn't old enough to vote in the last federal election, I know the candidates were Harper, Martin, and Layton (and Duceppe if you count the Bloc).

[paper halo]

And as far as our medical checks go, for an example, people with AIDS are not disqualified from our country.

Are you suggesting that they should be?

[tambam]

You said "the murderer would have killed people in China if he didn't come into Canada", as if that was some sort of point. It is not one.

what I meant by that is that the problem is deeper than immigration and would have happened whether or not he was allowed in the country. But the reality is, no one had any way of predicting that this would have happened because he had no previous criminal history and appeared to be stable. So there's no point in going back to this.

[chaosB4storm]

You use this alot. What, exactly, do you mean by 'strengthening your country'.

Because it seems that you just use it as a bullshit excuse to justify your opinions.

No, it is very valuable to me when it comes to immigration. It is so peole realise that I only want immigrants that make the country a better place; not immigrants that keep it the same or make it worse. I am not trying to weed out criminals from our immigration system, I am trying to find the individuals that will help.

[chaosB4storm]

Are you suggesting that they should be?

Well, it is a major strike against them. They must have a lot of positives going for them to justify the possibilty of infecting our citizens.

[chaosB4storm]

Well considering even I wasn't old enough to vote in the last federal election, I know the candidates were Harper, Martin, and Layton (and Duceppe if you count the Bloc).

You missed it entirely. I didn't vote Stephen Harper in for prime minister; i voted him in for leader of the conservatives. I voted for him over Belinda Stronach (who turned liberal a couple years later) and Tony Clement (whom had very similar views to Harper except I didn't think he had as much appeal to people, so I voted Harper because I thought he was more likely to be well-liked by Canada as a whole.

[Burning Star IV]

You missed it entirely. I didn't vote Stephen Harper in for prime minister; i voted him in for leader of the conservatives. I voted for him over Belinda Stronach (who turned liberal a couple years later) and Tony Clement (whom had very similar views to Harper except I didn't think he had as much appeal to people, so I voted Harper because I thought he was more likely to be well-liked by Canada as a whole.
It doesn't mean it was a good choice in hindsight.

[x togepi x]

Well, it is a major strike against them. They must have a lot of positives going for them to justify the possibilty of infecting our citizens.

yeah we should also make sure cancer patients and handicapped people don't get in the country either.

[oldwirehands]

The answer to violence isn't more security or surveillance. We live in fucking America. A free and open society. This isn't a military dictatorship. To put it simply: the system is not working and must change. When you look into the reflection of what our society has become, you see mostly anger and depression.

Like I said, more security isn't going to work. If anything it will make matters worse.

[Hockeywall]

The bottom line is, that this is one sick thing. I can't believe something like this actually happened. It is so retarded. My thoughts and prayers go to the McClean family in this harsh time.

Knowing how flawed our justice system is, you'll see him out alot sooner then would be expected. With things like this I was we had the death penalty[for drastic things like this]

[chaosB4storm]

yeah we should also make sure cancer patients and handicapped people don't get in the country either.

Your sarcasm isn't even well thought out. You should put more effort into being slightly funny.

Anyone who helps us should come into our country, regardless of who they are. It's not about pitying the foriegner, its about handpicking the ones with potential. Immigration is for the good of the country.

[x togepi x]

Your sarcasm isn't even well thought out. You should put more effort into being slightly funny.

Anyone who helps us should come into our country, regardless of who they are. It's not about pitying the foriegner, its about handpicking the ones with potential. Immigration is for the good of the country.

I'm not trying to be funny...I'm pointing out how horrible your rhetoric is.

What's keeping someone with AIDs from "helping our country"? I wasn't aware that when you get AIDs that you suddenly just lose all of your talents/skills and become a parasite.

[chaosB4storm]

I'm not trying to be funny...I'm pointing out how horrible your rhetoric is.

What's keeping someone with AIDs from "helping our country"? I wasn't aware that when you get AIDs that you suddenly just lose all of your talents/skills and become a parasite.

I said it was a strike against them: If there are two people that are pretty similar only one has AIDS, I would be more apt to choose the one without the contagious, fatal disease.

[x togepi x]

I said it was a strike against them: If there are two people that are pretty similar only one has AIDS, I would be more apt to choose the one without the contagious, fatal disease.

this logic is so piss poor it's not even funny. it's basically one giant false dilemma, we don't have to make the choice at all, since we can let both in, but secondly, it ignores the fact that AIDs is a highly preventable disease. it's not as if people with AIDs are just infecting everyone they come into contact with.

but even if it was logically sound, your logic is horribly dehumanizing. Not only do you act as if people with AIDs are subhuman in a sense ( sense they have a "strike against them"), you point out that a human's only value is whether they can "help our country". This turns people into objects.

[chaosB4storm]

this logic is so piss poor it's not even funny. it's basically one giant false dilemma, we don't have to make the choice at all, since we can let both in, but secondly, it ignores the fact that AIDs is a highly preventable disease. it's not as if people with AIDs are just infecting everyone they come into contact with.

but even if it was logically sound, your logic is horribly dehumanizing. Not only do you act as if people with AIDs are subhuman in a sense ( sense they have a "strike against them"), you point out that a human's only value is whether they can "help our country". This turns people into objects.

No it's not a false dilemma. Our country only wants a certain amount of people so the ones with AIDS should have strike against them, therefore putting people without AIDS having a higher chance of getting in.

Dehumanizing? People with AIDS are subhuman? Just because it's a strike against them? Are you actually arguing that we shouldn't judge which immigrants to take into our society based on how much they will help the country?

[xpunkyx]

A kid who's a conservative must of been brain fucked pretty good

I disagree. I think there's a major difference between the Canadian and American views of the word "conservative".

In Canada, its generally meant to mean fiscally conservative, and conservative when it comes to trade and foreign policy. "Conservative" does not have the same stigma here as it does in the US.

For example: I consider myself a supporter of the Conservative Party on both a Federal and Provincial level, but I by no means consider myself a traditionally Conservative person. I agree with their views on taxation and nationalism. If I were to be living in the States, I would be a supporter of the Democratic party because I agree with their stance on the very same things.

Politics in Canada tend to lean more to the left anyways. So even our conservative is pretty liberal.

[chaosB4storm]

I disagree. I think there's a major difference between the Canadian and American views of the word "conservative".

In Canada, its generally meant to mean fiscally conservative, and conservative when it comes to trade and foreign policy. "Conservative" does not have the same stigma here as it does in the US.

For example: I consider myself a supporter of the Conservative Party on both a Federal and Provincial level, but I by no means consider myself a traditionally Conservative person. I agree with their views on taxation and nationalism. If I were to be living in the States, I would be a supporter of the Democratic party because I agree with their stance on the very same things.

Politics in Canada tend to lean more to the left anyways. So even our conservative is pretty liberal.

Agreed.

[xpunkyx]

I wasn't aware that when you get AIDs that you suddenly just lose all of your talents/skills and become a parasite.

I'm trying not to take a polarized stance on this issue because I think its very sensitive, but when you bring an immigrant into the country that has a highly contagious, chronic disease that requires constant medical attention and intervention, it places a strain on the medical system that some may deem unnecessary. People may argue that it doesn't make sense to bring this person into the country when our resources could be used helping natural citizens combat that very same disease.

[chaosB4storm]

I'm trying not to take a polarized stance on this issue because I think its very sensitive, but when you bring an immigrant into the country that has a highly contagious, chronic disease that requires constant medical attention and intervention, it places a strain on the medical system that some may deem unnecessary. People may argue that it doesn't make sense to bring this person into the country when our resources could be used helping natural citizens combat that very same disease.

Yes.

[xpunkyx]

Yes.

P.S. I live in Belinda Stronach's riding.

I do not approve of her and our country's thought that she can do no wrong!

[chaosB4storm]

P.S. I live in Belinda Stronach's riding.

I do not approve of her and our country's thought that she can do no wrong!

This is great lol. People like you give me hope.

[Nevuk]

Weapons used for personal security are incapable of such range.
Actually, they are. You can't possibly aim them, but you can kill people miles away by accident if the area your shooting in is violent. Which is really an argument for not letting idiots have guns.

And the second degree murder thing I can understand as he picked the victim at random and there was no "conspiracy to commit" involved (ie, knowing and stalking the guy).

[Nevuk]

That's not what you said. You said you didn't care about murders in China. You can still strengthen your country without being selfish.

That's different. You already know your brother. You implied that the life of one stranger is more important to you than the life of another just because one of them lives here and the other doesn't.
One of the required prerequisites for a State is that any member within in it is worth the lives of thousands of people without it. (Or even the comfort of members within it - just look at British Colonialism)

[chaosB4storm]

Actually, they are. You can't possibly aim them, but you can kill people miles away by accident if the area your shooting in is violent. Which is really an argument for not letting idiots have guns.

And the second degree murder thing I can understand as he picked the victim at random and there was no "conspiracy to commit" involved (ie, knowing and stalking the guy).

When people discuss range, that is not what they are referring to. That is an extremely unlikely scenario with a hand gun.

Second degree murder is understandable, but I am going to say in advance that the punishment he gets will be much less than what he deserves.

[x togepi x]

I'm trying not to take a polarized stance on this issue because I think its very sensitive, but when you bring an immigrant into the country that has a highly contagious, chronic disease that requires constant medical attention and intervention, it places a strain on the medical system that some may deem unnecessary. People may argue that it doesn't make sense to bring this person into the country when our resources could be used helping natural citizens combat that very same disease.

the small amount of people that come into the country with AIDs do not put a giant strain on public health services. it's a drop in bucket, the system can more than handle the small amount of people who have it, and moving to a more developed country is actually better as we can handle it much easier.

and by using terms "highly contagious", you're acting like going around with people who have AIDs is automatically going to get you infected. it's quite hard to get it.


but what's the difference between this and handicapped people or people with cancer? Do they not put a similar strain on public health services? why arbitrarily draw the line at AIDS?

[x togepi x]

No it's not a false dilemma. Our country only wants a certain amount of people so the ones with AIDS should have strike against them, therefore putting people without AIDS having a higher chance of getting in.

It's a false dilemma because these situations rarely come down to 1 vs. 1 decisions. Immigration doesn't sit people down and go "oh, well, you're not as good as Mr. Jones here, so we're going to send you back to (insert country here)".

Disease-status should not be a factor here. People can cope with having it. They don't really pose a harm to the general public. It's just like someone having a genetic defect, or handicap. Our public health sector is already equipped to handle people with AIDS. If we do the physical for immigration, we find out they have AIDS, then that goes in the person's medical records, giving the medical officials the time to take the proper precautions.

Dehumanizing? People with AIDS are subhuman? Just because it's a strike against them?

You're putting them in a lower class of people and using their status in the group as a reason they might not be allowed in the country. That's dehumanizing.

but the real dehumanization comes from the fact that you're more than willing to not let people in just because "they don't help". You're assigning the value of people based on how we can use them. This makes people not human, but merely objects to be used. That's where the dehumanization comes in.

Are you actually arguing that we shouldn't judge which immigrants to take into our society based on how much they will help the country?

well since you still haven't elaborated what "help the country" fucking means, it's nearly impossible to answer this question.

I also see no reason why a person with AIDS can't "help" the country at all. Plenty of successful people cope with the illness. I mean fuck, HIV isn't exactly the same, but Magic Johnson has had it for years and has been quite successful.

Sure, it can be an obvious handicap, which is why i asked "are you willing to use being handicapped/having cancer as justification for not letting people immigrate"? I wasn't aware that there was some essential element in a person's with AIDS that suddenly rendered them "useless" to society.

[xpunkyx]

the small amount of people that come into the country with AIDs do not put a giant strain on public health services. it's a drop in bucket, the system can more than handle the small amount of people who have it, and moving to a more developed country is actually better as we can handle it much easier.

and by using terms "highly contagious", you're acting like going around with people who have AIDs is automatically going to get you infected. it's quite hard to get it.


but what's the difference between this and handicapped people or people with cancer? Do they not put a similar strain on public health services? why arbitrarily draw the line at AIDS?

I know it sounds heartless and pretty cold, but there is no difference. AIDS was just the example that was given, so I used it.

The point I'm trying to make here, is that national resources (in this case, the health care system) are there for the use of citizens. When those citizens have taken what they need, and there is some left over, we can open our proverbial arms and welcome in others...but only those that are going to help us, not hinder us. The whole point of immigration is to cultivate human resources from all over the world to help better our countries. With this in mind, if it were my choice and I had to choose between letting into the country a skilled immigrant that was healthy, or a skilled immigrant with a terminal disease or major handicap...the choice is pretty clear.

[chaosB4storm]

It's a false dilemma because these situations rarely come down to 1 vs. 1 decisions. Immigration doesn't sit people down and go "oh, well, you're not as good as Mr. Jones here, so we're going to send you back to (insert country here)".

Disease-status should not be a factor here. People can cope with having it. They don't really pose a harm to the general public. It's just like someone having a genetic defect, or handicap. Our public health sector is already equipped to handle people with AIDS. If we do the physical for immigration, we find out they have AIDS, then that goes in the person's medical records, giving the medical officials the time to take the proper precautions.



You're putting them in a lower class of people and using their status in the group as a reason they might not be allowed in the country. That's dehumanizing.

but the real dehumanization comes from the fact that you're more than willing to not let people in just because "they don't help". You're assigning the value of people based on how we can use them. This makes people not human, but merely objects to be used. That's where the dehumanization comes in.



well since you still haven't elaborated what "help the country" fucking means, it's nearly impossible to answer this question.

I also see no reason why a person with AIDS can't "help" the country at all. Plenty of successful people cope with the illness. I mean fuck, HIV isn't exactly the same, but Magic Johnson has had it for years and has been quite successful.

Sure, it can be an obvious handicap, which is why i asked "are you willing to use being handicapped/having cancer as justification for not letting people immigrate"? I wasn't aware that there was some essential element in a person's with AIDS that suddenly rendered them "useless" to society.

The problem is that you do not understand how immigrants help the country. You think the immigration system is in place for the sole reason of helping out foriegners. You are very wrong.
Immigrants can stabalize population, provide us with certain jobs when there's a shortage, contribute to the economy, and also bring capital with them. That is how they can help the country.

As for the handicapped/cancer patient, they at least are not contagious. However, depending on their situation, they may cost us money through the health care system. The question becomes whether or not they will help the economy overall.

[Justin_stacy]

I disagree. I think there's a major difference between the Canadian and American views of the word "conservative".

In Canada, its generally meant to mean fiscally conservative, and conservative when it comes to trade and foreign policy. "Conservative" does not have the same stigma here as it does in the US.

For example: I consider myself a supporter of the Conservative Party on both a Federal and Provincial level, but I by no means consider myself a traditionally Conservative person. I agree with their views on taxation and nationalism. If I were to be living in the States, I would be a supporter of the Democratic party because I agree with their stance on the very same things.

Politics in Canada tend to lean more to the left anyways. So even our conservative is pretty liberal.


You honestly believe "Conservative" as a label has a stigma in America? More so then "liberal"?

[xpunkyx]

You honestly believe "Conservative" as a label has a stigma in America? More so then "liberal"?

I wouldn't say moreso than liberal. But yes, I definitely believe that those terms do have a stigma down there...different than up here.

[chaosB4storm]

You honestly believe "Conservative" as a label has a stigma in America? More so then "liberal"?

I honestly understand why that wouldn't make a lot of sense to you as an American. The important part of what she's saying is that conservatives are more liberal in Canada than in America. "Conservative" is a stronger word in America than in Canada.

[boykosaurus]

Alright.

He's a recent immigrant. We possibly need tighter control.
He's being charged with second degree murder. Any ideas on proper punishment for him?
The biggest issue, however, is security. How should it change, if it should at all? Should we have airport-like security on all bus stations?

The liberal party has brought up the idea of registering knives. The conservative government is opposed to it. Thoughts?

...

[chaosB4storm]

...

I'm not sure how an ellipsis applies here.

[boykosaurus]

I don't see how one immigrant applies to the whole system?

[chaosB4storm]

I don't see how one immigrant applies to the whole system?

It is incidents like this that raise people's awareness levels. One immigrant does not apply to the whole system, but he contributes to it. If this was the only relevent case, you're right, there would be no problem. I just thought that since this was causing a huge uproar in Canada that it would be an appropriate time to bring up these issues.

[boykosaurus]

I'll just have to wait what information comes out of the murderer, this is all still new and shocking.

[chaosB4storm]

I'll just have to wait what information comes out of the murderer, this is all still new and shocking.

For suresies

[x togepi x]

.
The point I'm trying to make here, is that national resources (in this case, the health care system) are there for the use of citizens.

The problem with this point is that it assumes that people with AIDS are just going to come in here, act like parasites on our PHS without putting anything back into it. You're ignoring the fact that they will pay taxes just like anyone else, offsetting what little impact they would have on the system.

When those citizens have taken what they need, and there is some left over, we can open our proverbial arms and welcome in others...but only those that are going to help us, not hinder us.

This is highly ethnocentric. Why do you keep assuming that people are just going to come into a country and automatically siphon resources? That really doesn't happen. If someone can afford to come through legal channels, chances are they're going to be able to afford to at least pay taxes in this country so that they can help pay back what they take.

If they come in illegally, then this is a moot point.

The whole point of immigration is to cultivate human resources from all over the world to help better our countries. With this in mind, if it were my choice and I had to choose between letting into the country a skilled immigrant that was healthy, or a skilled immigrant with a terminal disease or major handicap...the choice is pretty clear.

Except i've already shown how this scenario makes no sense because it's not a one vs. one choice. that's why it's one false dilemma

The problem is that you do not understand how immigrants help the country. You think the immigration system is in place for the sole reason of helping out foriegners. You are very wrong.

Interesting, a statement i never made is wrong.

What's funny here is, when responding to an argument I never made, you end up being completely wrong here. We have an immigration system because people want to immigrate. It's to handle the demand. It's not to "strengthen the country", it's not to "help foreigners" (though the immigration system can, and often does, do both). It's meant to manage the movement of people into a country, so that the demand to move into the country from the outside is dealt with.

You're confusing the benefits of immigration as it exists currently with the reasons we have the system, when there's a slight, but important difference. The difference being that the immigration system would continue to exist even if there weren't super benefits for letting people immigrate, simply because people don't really want to live in a state with closed borders.

Immigrants can stabalize population, provide us with certain jobs when there's a shortage, contribute to the economy, and also bring capital with them. That is how they can help the country.

interesting, since people with AIDS can also work certain jobs, contribute to the economy, and bring money with them. it seems as if, their having the illness is irrelevant, so it shouldn't be a strike against them at all.

As for the handicapped/cancer patient, they at least are not contagious.

answered above. Developed nations can prevent the spread of AIDs. Contagious is such a poor word to be using. it implies that merely being around someone with AIDs =having a chance to get AIDs, but that isn't the case. You have to do very specific things like have sex or share needles, both of which our public health system is already ready to cope with.

but even then, you can say handicapped/cancer pantients are "contagious" as many forms of cancer/handicaps can be genetic, meaning they could still pass these things down to their offspring.

This is why I don't see why you guys are arbitrarily drawing the line at AIDs.

However, depending on their situation, they may cost us money through the health care system. The question becomes whether or not they will help the economy overall.

Once again, you're assigning one's value of a human being based on "helping" which is dehumanizing. people aren't objects.

[chaosB4storm]

We have an immigration system because people want to immigrate. It's to handle the demand. It's not to "strengthen the country", it's not to "help foreigners" (though the immigration system can, and often does, do both). It's meant to manage the movement of people into a country, so that the demand to move into the country from the outside is dealt with.

You're confusing the benefits of immigration as it exists currently with the reasons we have the system, when there's a slight, but important difference. The difference being that the immigration system would continue to exist even if there weren't super benefits for letting people immigrate, simply because people don't really want to live in a state with closed borders.

This argument is pointless until you can realise that this, among other things, is 100% false.

[x togepi x]

This argument is pointless until you can realise that this, among other things, is 100% false.

I'm sorry, i'm not going to take the words of an 18 year old dumb ass to be true when you provide no fucking analysis whatsoever.

[chaosB4storm]

I'm sorry, i'm not going to take the words of an 18 year old dumb ass to be true when you provide no fucking analysis whatsoever.

I have made many points in this thread. You no longer get an analysis from me because of your apparent inability to comprehend reality. You might wish the immigration system is simply for easy moevment from country to country, and you might hope that your country would still continue to allow immigration even at the country's detriment. This is clearly not reality.

I provide analyses for the sake of the viewers of the thread that may have open minds, not neccessarily for the individual I am debating with. Since I believe it is obvious to everyone else that your position needs a reality check, there is no reason for me to tell them what is already apparent.

Maybe it's because I am 18 that you refuse to listen to my points, maybe you simply do not have an open mind, or maybe you enjoy dreaming about a world that doesn't exist, but the fact is that you are hopelessly refusing to see the light.

You're right, since my superior intelligence isn't working for you, maybe if I was 24 it would.

[Nevuk]

I provide analyses for the sake of the viewers of the thread that may have open minds, not neccessarily for the individual I am debating with. Since I believe it is obvious to everyone else that your position needs a reality check, there is no reason for me to tell them what is already apparent.

Maybe it's because I am 18 that you refuse to listen to my points, maybe you simply do not have an open mind, or maybe you enjoy dreaming about a world that doesn't exist, but the fact is that you are hopelessly refusing to see the light.

You're right, since my superior intelligence isn't working for you, maybe if I was 24 it would.
I agree with him to a very large extent, but I'll spell out the flaws I'm seeing in your argument (Due to you being willing to explain to members of the audience. and you being 18 has nothing to do with it on my end, its more due to my perception of preconceived notions) :
Your thesis has several warrants you've not verified. Basically, you claim that people with AIDS are bad immigrants because they'd be a burden of society. This wouldn't be true in the US regardless (as the government has a hands off policy towards helping people here). You need to prove first that an immigrant isn't supposed to be a burden on society.
Yes, it may sound like common sense. But you still haven't proved it. You also need to prove that they will be a burden on society, or at least are significantly more likely statistically to prove a burden than other groups. (They may cost more money while alive, but people with AIDs tend to... die. And after they're dead, there are no more medical costs, unlike the average person who winds up in the hospital mutliple times for their 90+ years). You've also pretty much banned old people by this logic.

Plus, I don't get this whole "THEY MUST HALP THE COUNTRY. THE COOOOOUNTRY" logic at all. You can't really... help... something that is non-existent, merely a mutal hallucination.

[x togepi x]

I have made many points in thread. You no longer get an analysis from me because of your apparent inability to comprehend reality.

You don't respond to my points, you just repeat yourself. I specifically responded to your assertion that immigration policies are meant to manage immigration, not as a benefit to a country and you just ignored said respond to say 'THIS IS 100% WRONG". that's not an argument, that's just you act like a child.

You might wish the immigration system is simply for easy moevment from country to country, and you might hope that your country would still continue to allow immigration even at the country's detriment. This is clearly not reality.

There are so many problems with this view that it's not even funny.

First, it's a straw man of the assertion I made. I never said immigration is "simply for easy movement from country to country" nor did i say "i might hope my country would continue to allow immigration at the country's detriment". This shows that you either lack reading comprehension skills, or you're being intellectually dishonest.

What I said was that immigration policies are meant to manage the demand of people wanting to immigrate. That's completely different than "making it easy" or "allowing people in if it's to the detriment of the country". Management makes sure that the people immigrating into the country aren't necessarily harming it, but it doesn't entail making sure that they're beneficial.

Secondly, it confuses the benefits from immigration with what the immigration system itself does, when the two are different. The benefits come from immigration, not the system. The system is just meant to manage this immigration. The reason there's a distinction is that you can have benefits from immigration that happens outside the system (like illegal immigration). The immigration system is merely a set of laws and the organizations that enforce them. They're just managers.


but hey, way to drop all of the points on AIDs because you have no response to them!

I provide analyses for the sake of the viewers of the thread that may have open minds, not neccessarily for the individual I am debating with. Since I believe it is obvious to everyone else that your position needs a reality check, there is no reason for me to tell them what is already apparent.

If by "everyone else" you mean, you and like one other person, then yes. You really need to figure out that having an open mind doesn't entail agreeing with your idiotic positions.but once again, you're making a fallacious argument. it doesn't matter if "everyone else here" thinks you're right and i'm wrong since that has no bearing on the truth of a statement.

Maybe it's because I am 18 that you refuse to listen to my points, maybe you simply do not have an open mind, or maybe you enjoy dreaming about a world that doesn't exist, but the fact is that you are hopelessly refusing to see the light.

No, it's because you make assertions with no analysis, ones that lack a complete real world perspective. You make claims and then when someone calls you out on said claim, you just repeat your claim again.

or, you just take what people say in response to your claim and make a straw man out of it, and then respond to things people never said.

It has nothing to do with your age or "open mind", it has to do with your inability to make a coherent argument.

[chaosB4storm]

I agree with him to a very large extent, but I'll spell out the flaws I'm seeing in your argument (Due to you being willing to explain to members of the audience. and you being 18 has nothing to do with it on my end, its more due to my perception of preconceived notions) :
Your thesis has several warrants you've not verified. Basically, you claim that people with AIDS are bad immigrants because they'd be a burden of society. This wouldn't be true in the US regardless (as the government has a hands off policy towards helping people here). You need to prove first that an immigrant isn't supposed to be a burden on society.
Yes, it may sound like common sense. But you still haven't proved it. You also need to prove that they will be a burden on society, or at least are significantly more likely statistically to prove a burden than other groups. (They may cost more money while alive, but people with AIDs tend to... die. And after they're dead, there are no more medical costs, unlike the average person who winds up in the hospital mutliple times for their 90+ years). You've also pretty much banned old people by this logic.

Plus, I don't get this whole "THEY MUST HALP THE COUNTRY. THE COOOOOUNTRY" logic at all. You can't really... help... something that is non-existent, merely a mutal hallucination.

In Canada, the country in question, people are provided extensive health care by the government. People with AIDS are included in this system. If, like you say, people with AIDS paid all of their health care by themselves, then they would obviously not be an economical detriment.

Even if, however, a person paid for all of their needs by themselves, this does not nesseccarily mean they will help the ocuntry. This is only a neutral effect (which is no effect at all).

There must be people that are a detriment to society that must be excluded from our immigration system. Criminals are a perfect example. We will not allow criminals to immigrate because they are a detriment to society, or if you like, they will not help the country.

Immigrants are for job shortages, and economic gain, and not for their personal benefit. That is the refugee system. In other words, immigrants must help the country. I don't know how you don't understand "help the country" logic. It is the entire basis of the system. Don't you have a qualification test that immigrants must apply for in the US? Isn't is obvious that it is to see whether or not you will let them in? What is the point of that test if not to see the benefit of taking that citizen in?

[chaosB4storm]

You don't respond to my points, you just repeat yourself. I specifically responded to your assertion that immigration policies are meant to manage immigration, not as a benefit to a country and you just ignored said respond to say 'THIS IS 100% WRONG". that's not an argument, that's just you act like a child.



There are so many problems with this view that it's not even funny.

First, it's a straw man of the assertion I made. I never said immigration is "simply for easy movement from country to country" nor did i say "i might hope my country would continue to allow immigration at the country's detriment". This shows that you either lack reading comprehension skills, or you're being intellectually dishonest.

What I said was that immigration policies are meant to manage the demand of people wanting to immigrate. That's completely different than "making it easy" or "allowing people in if it's to the detriment of the country". Management makes sure that the people immigrating into the country aren't necessarily harming it, but it doesn't entail making sure that they're beneficial.

Secondly, it confuses the benefits from immigration with what the immigration system itself does, when the two are different. The benefits come from immigration, not the system. The system is just meant to manage this immigration. The reason there's a distinction is that you can have benefits from immigration that happens outside the system (like illegal immigration). The immigration system is merely a set of laws and the organizations that enforce them. They're just managers.


but hey, way to drop all of the points on AIDs because you have no response to them!



If by "everyone else" you mean, you and like one other person, then yes. You really need to figure out that having an open mind doesn't entail agreeing with your idiotic positions.but once again, you're making a fallacious argument. it doesn't matter if "everyone else here" thinks you're right and i'm wrong since that has no bearing on the truth of a statement.



No, it's because you make assertions with no analysis, ones that lack a complete real world perspective. You make claims and then when someone calls you out on said claim, you just repeat your claim again.

or, you just take what people say in response to your claim and make a straw man out of it, and then respond to things people never said.

It has nothing to do with your age or "open mind", it has to do with your inability to make a coherent argument.

So you think that the immigration system is designed for "[managing] the demand of people wanting to immigrate. You also have said that management makes sure that the people coming in are not harming the country, but not neccessarily beneficial.

So your minimum requirement for immigration is neutrality. This means that you let in people that benefit the country, and no one that has a negative effect on the country.

The only difference between our arguments is the way we look at them. You say the immigration system disallows bad people, and I say the immigration system allows good people.

[anamericangod]

So you think that the immigration system is designed for "[managing] the demand of people wanting to immigrate. You also have said that management makes sure that the people coming in are not harming the country, but not neccessarily beneficial.

So your minimum requirement for immigration is neutrality. This means that you let in people that benefit the country, and no one that has a negative effect on the country.

The only difference between our arguments is the way we look at them. You say the immigration system disallows bad people, and I say the immigration system allows good people.

What the fuck?

[x togepi x]

In Canada, the country in question, people are provided extensive health care by the government. People with AIDS are included in this system. If, like you say, people with AIDS paid all of their health care by themselves, then they would obviously not be an economical detriment.

here the difference between the US and Canada is irrelevant since people with AIDS aren't suddenly tax exempt. much like you would pay taxes in order to get health care, so would they. and as I've pointed out, AIDS doesn't mean you're suddenly are incapable of working. Millions of people cope with the disease.

Even if, however, a person paid for all of their needs by themselves, this does not nesseccarily mean they will help the ocuntry. This is only a neutral effect (which is no effect at all).

Even if anyone immigrates this doesn't necessarily mean that they help the country, hence my point about immigration not being specifically for the benefit of a country, but rather a sociological phenomenon.

You seriously act as if anyone with AIDS suddenly loses all of their other talents and skills, rendering them socially useless. That isn't the case. It's a handicap, sure, but being handicapped doesn't mean that you can't be "beneficial".

There must be people that are a detriment to society that must be excluded from our immigration system. Criminals are a perfect example. We will not allow criminals to immigrate because they are a detriment to society, or if you like, they will not help the country.

There's a difference between "being beneficial", "being neutral" and "being a detriment" to society. Criminals are detriments, sure, but people with AIDS aren't necessarily a detriment, or neutral or beneficial. They fit into any three of the categories based on their skills/background, which makes their illness irrelevant.

Immigrants are for job shortages, and economic gain, and not for their personal benefit.

This point makes no sense, as there's no correlation between the jobs immigrants take, and the jobs in which there is a shortage of (unless we're talking about illegal immigration, which we're not). For example, immigration isn't going to turn away someone who's capable of making $100k a year even if they don't work in a field in which there's a shortage. I mean, I doubt if Albert Pujols decided to immigrate to Canada to play for the Blue Jays that Canada would turn him away, even though I wouldn't say Canada has a shortage of baseball players.

Besides, your view completely ignores why the immigrants themselves immigrate, which isn't to benefit some country they aren't citizens of yet. They mostly immigrate for their benefit. The policies they have to deal with are based on managing them, not making sure they're the most beneficial.

That is the refugee system.

Refugees are a subset of immigration, a specific kind, which actually does get let in the country even though they supposedly "don't benefit" the country (even though that's not true either). For proof: Canada has a long history of letting draft dodgers and other political refugees in.

In other words, immigrants must help the country. I don't know how you don't understand "help the country" logic. It is the entire basis of the system. Don't you have a qualification test that immigrants must apply for in the US? Isn't is obvious that it is to see whether or not you will let them in? What is the point of that test if not to see the benefit of taking that citizen in?

The point of those tests isn't to make sure they are "beneficial", it's to make sure they're able to assimilate. Also, not everyone who immigrates into the US has to be a citizen, you can get work visas, but more importantly, the test is so simple that you could pass it without being "beneficial" to the country. That hardest part about getting into the US legally isn't the test, it's the other legal limbos that you have to deal with.

[x togepi x]

So you think that the immigration system is designed for "[managing] the demand of people wanting to immigrate. You also have said that management makes sure that the people coming in are not harming the country, but not neccessarily beneficial.

So your minimum requirement for immigration is neutrality. This means that you let in people that benefit the country, and no one that has a negative effect on the country.

The only difference between our arguments is the way we look at them. You say the immigration system disallows bad people, and I say the immigration system allows good people.

that isn't at all a response to what I said. Once again, you're confusing the benefits/harms of immigration as a social phenomenon with the policies themselves when they are two separate things.

[Nevuk]

I'm really tired and about to go to bed, but you still need to answer how people with AIDS are more detrimental than your average citizen. I'm now going to make my point in the absolute cruelest way possible. A person with AIDS isn't likely to live as long as a person without it. They are less likely to require medical care for as lengthy a period of time. On average, they might have a lower medical cost than a typical 25 year old who lives to become 105. That's a really callous way of making my point, but its a callous dilemma regardless. And it definitely smacks of ethnocentrism to pick AIDS, due to the populations most likely to have it.
The reason criminals are denied is because most people believe in free will. While you may have genetics that make you prone to commit criminal behavior, this is not an indicator as it is your decision to act on impulses. Therefore, those who commit crimes are a lower type of person (I actually despise this type of logic as its very... idiotically dualistic, and descriptive of governing mentality). An illness is a slightly different matter. Many people are born with AIDs and had no choice in the matter, as well some who acquired it through blood transfusions.

America's immigration tests are BS filled with questions 95% of american citizens couldn't answer, designed to produce nationalism in applicants.

[Nevuk]

Oh, and I'm for actual open borders, as in if you can find a way to get there, go ahead and immigrate.

Which is basically Panarchy.

[chaosB4storm]

I'm really tired and about to go to bed, but you still need to answer how people with AIDS are more detrimental than your average citizen. I'm now going to make my point in the absolute cruelest way possible. A person with AIDS isn't likely to live as long as a person without it. They are less likely to require medical care for as lengthy a period of time. On average, they might have a lower medical cost than a typical 25 year old who lives to become 105. That's a really callous way of making my point, but its a callous dilemma regardless. And it definitely smacks of ethnocentrism to pick AIDS, due to the populations most likely to have it.
The reason criminals are denied is because most people believe in free will. While you may have genetics that make you prone to commit criminal behavior, this is not an indicator as it is your decision to act on impulses. Therefore, those who commit crimes are a lower type of person (I actually despise this type of logic as its very... idiotically dualistic, and descriptive of governing mentality). An illness is a slightly different matter. Many people are born with AIDs and had no choice in the matter, as well some who acquired it through blood transfusions.

America's immigration tests are BS filled with questions 95% of american citizens couldn't answer, designed to produce nationalism in applicants.

The AIDS idea is merely an example. If it is a bad example of a person being detrimental, than pick something else that you believe IS detrimental. The point is that detrimental people are denied access to the country, and should be. This has never been about AIDS, it was just an example I used because I believe an AIDS patient on average, costs about 2 million dollars to treat in our country.

Detrimental potential immigrants exist. You are all trying to deny the discussion, and pick apart the example. Does your ideal immigration system allow people into your country that you believe are detrimental?

[chaosB4storm]

Oh, and I'm for actual open borders, as in if you can find a way to get there, go ahead and immigrate.

Which is basically Panarchy.

Don't bother answering my last question then.